CBS chief executive Les Moonves has revealed that he was approached directly by late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs to discuss a subscription TV service, but he rejected the offer over concerns that it would disrupt the company's existing revenue streams.

Moonves had confirmed last November during an earnings call that Apple had held talks with CBS over a "success-based or non-guaranteed" streaming TV service. During the UCLA Entertainment Symposium on Saturday, he mentioned the additional detail that it was Jobs himself who had given the pitch, Hollywood Reporter reports.

"I told Steve, 'You know more than me about 99 percent of things but I know more about the television business,' " he said.

The executive noted that his reasons for rejecting the service were concerns that it would affect CBS' current revenue sources. According to him, Jobs strongly disagreed with his reasoning.

Moonves did say during the talk that he was optimistic about digital opportunities, calling streaming video service Netflix a "friend" of CBS. Agreements with Hulu and Netflix turned around the CW network, which CBS has a stake in, from being a "losing proposition" to a profitable one.

Reports have suggested that Apple has been pitching its proposed subscription service for years with little success. Moonves' candid remarks serve as some of the most concrete indications that the company was actively pursuing partnerships with content providers.

CBS CEO Les Moonves | Credit: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images

Apple did, however, recently win a small victory in its efforts to attain more flexibility in providing digital video options for consumers. The company announced last week that iTunes in the Cloud functionality has expanded to include re-downloading movies and TV shows. It was also discovered that iTunes Digital Copy files are now recognized as Purchased in iTunes in the Cloud and can be streamed to a second-generation Apple TV.

The company unveiled last week the third-generation Apple TV with support for 1080p video output. The new set-top box goes on sale later this week.

According to one recent report, Apple is actively "pushing ahead" with its plans for a streaming TV service in the face of resistance from studios and other content providers. People familiar with the matter told The New York Post that Apple is set on getting the service off the ground before the end of the year. The company has reportedly decided to launch the service first before bringing to market its much-rumored television set. Multiple sources believe Apple could unveil a high-definition connected TV as early as late 2012 in preparation for release in early 2013.

How diplomatic. Other execs likely just told him to take a hike, given that he wants to take profits from their hard work while giving back almost nothing.

Steve Jobs is dead, if you haven't noticed, so you can stop spewing venom at him every opportunity you get. It's rather classless, and makes you look like an asshole.

As for your comment, it's asinine. In the opinion of many iTunes saved the music industry, and got people who were stealing music motivated to buy legitimately. As for TV, I haven't watched a show on TV since.. I can't even remember. The experience is so horrible with commercial breaks every 5 min and the inflexibility of it all. So yeah, sure this exec wants things to stay exacltly the same, fuck the consumer and the experience. As for myself, I admit that I torrent TV shows, because there literally are zero other avenues to watch things in a convenient, timely manner. If Apple TV had this type of content, I would gladly pay. So GTFO about your FUD and your bullshit about SJ 'taking profits from their hard work' and 'giving back nothing'. What hard work? Where the fuck has the TV industry ever innovated? The experience is the same as it was 30 years ago. God forbid Jobs had a vision to modernize this industry, as he modernized everything else. Nice to see you're on the side of these selfish execs who couldn't give a fuck about you or the consumer experience, but wants things to stay exactly the same as long as their pockets are getting padded.

At least Music, Developers, Books, Magazines, Higher Education and Newspaper industries are moving on into 21st century. TV industry wants it to get to the point when they're gonna be begging Apple for help. It's their choice.

At least Music, Developers, Books, Magazines, Higher Education and Newspaper industries are moving on into 21st century. TV industry wants it to get to the point when they're gonna be begging Apple for help. It's their choice.

It's much more complex than any of those in ways that makes it hard for anyone to make headway for change. I think Apple's easiest targets are the paid premium channels like HBO and Showtime, then the ad laden pay channels, and finally the commercial broadcasting networks. Unfortunately you really don't have a replacement until you have all the pieces in place.

Apparently Apple has also tried to create a cable box but cable providers are against that as well. I think it's likely true as it boils down to the same reason CBS is weary.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Buy the DVD, thief. You guys think everything should be free. That is why Apple has to lock down iOS - to keep people from stealing the hard work of developers.

Oh, it's SO inconvenient to not steal - yeah right.

Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.

I can relate to this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
..because that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I wanted to watch Game of Thrones. It was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to buy. Anywhere. Or watch. I live in Canada.

The model is horribly outdated and archaic. There's nothing wrong with wanting things to improve. I like how you magically expect people to act in ways that are utterly unrealistic and inconvenient, where much simpler avenues are present, and instead of wanting the business model to change to acocomdate the consumer and motivate more people to pay, you can people like Steve Jobs a thief for attempting to do so, and pat the execs who are completely disconnected with the needs of most consumers on the back just cause they're doing such a bang-up job. I've never stolen an app, so fuck off with your implications.

If CBS can see the benefits of doing deals with Netflix and Hulu why can't they see the benefits of doing a deal with Apple? I wonder what Steve proposed and why it was seen as a threat rather than an opportunity? I'm sure they must sell CBS shows on iTunes now, so they can see the potential for such as service.

If CBS can see the benefits of doing deals with Netflix and Hulu why can't they see the benefits of doing a deal with Apple? I wonder what Steve proposed and why it was seen as a threat rather than an opportunity? I'm sure they must sell CBS shows on iTunes now, so they can see the potential for such as service.

It may not be anything more than Apple being extremely successful. Even if Apple can increase or rejuvenate a market for others the amount of success and control they have gained this past decade in markets they entered can look like a scary proposition.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Apple should launch the TV service for free and focus on global ad spenders, embedded ads etc...with a commercials option. If you study the history of TV Broadcasting you see the inherent conflicts in the model, how ad spenders participate,and why the courts got involved in local programming issues. Originally people were concerned there wasn't enough room on the spectrum for local broadcasts, news etc..the Internet not only allows local but global programming if I want to see it and at a much lower cost to the consumer. Why should we be constricted to what the broadcasters want us to watch so they can get ad spending dollars. CBS can operate business as usual and this may increase their viewing audience. I recommend dumping Direct TV, Dish, or any other service. Get your news from Twitter and become not only locally but globally informed more and faster than CNN

Allow streaming to ios devices including apple tv. Include commercials. Charge a subscription.

I would pay for that, and accept the commercials. The advertisers would accept that. Apple would accept that.

The only one that loses is the cable company. But they make up for it in increased Internet traffic, assuming they are also offering ISP business.

I don't see where the problem is.

Cable wins as they are the only source fast enough to deliver internet over the last mile it is not built out in many places. $120 per month for the faster cable internet service why ad Direct TV or Dish on that for lousy controlled programmimg

It may not be anything more than Apple being extremely successful. Even if Apple can increase or rejuvenate a market for others the amount of success and control they have gained this past decade in markets they entered can look like a scary proposition.

Does Apple really need a streaming TV service to launch their Apple TV? I've probably downloaded more than enough content from iTunes (movies and tv shows) to keep me going. If there was more HD films to buy I would buy more. If there was more of my fav old tv shows available I would buy them to.

When I looked at Netflix and Lovefilm recently I wasn't that impressed with the content available to stream.

I get the impression that CBS and the other studios want Apple to stump millions of dollars in advance like Netflix did for the rights to stream their shows, whereas Apple wants a more pay-as-you-go type arrangement.

Apple did, however, recently win a small victory in its efforts to attain more flexibility in providing digital video options for consumers. The company announced last week that iTunes in the Cloud functionality has expanded to include re-downloading movies and TV shows.

This is not true, TV shows have been in iCloud for some time, only movies were added last week. The only thing that happened to TV shows is they increased their resolution to 1080p.

I personally would not buy a TV subscription service. Since I already know what shows I like, I am happy buying Season Passes. For discovering new shows, perhaps they could make pilot episodes downloadable for free, instead of needing a full-fledged subscription service.

I've been saying that for years. I agree with CBS exec saying Apple would affect that... but that doesn't mean I don't want it affected.

CBS should do the deal. people are going to cut off satellite providers etc... eventually cost and product are not competitive with global programming user freedom. Once the consumer gets use to controlling their own programming they will resent CBS for not making the switch to a more open format like Apple TV with choice and no commercials

This is not true, TV shows have been in iCloud for some time, only movies were added last week. The only thing that happened to TV shows is they increased their resolution to 1080p.

I personally would not buy a TV subscription service. Since I already know what shows I like, I am happy buying Season Passes. For discovering new shows, perhaps they could make pilot episodes downloadable for free, instead of needing a full-fledged subscription service.

Its about the freedom of choice it works and drives more revenue to CBS if they have quality programming

Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.

I can relate to this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
..because that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I wanted to watch Game of Thrones. It was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to buy. Anywhere. Or watch. I live in Canada.

That cartoon is totally wrong...

The complete season of Game of Thrones would be larger than 2.39GB. :-)

Seriously though, I also looked for GoT through iTunes a few weeks ago and it wasn't there. I thought that was odd as I'd already watched the show last year on HBO Canada. Not sure what the big delay was. Its available now, but an episode is $4.49 for HD.

Does Apple really need a streaming TV service to launch their Apple TV? I've probably downloaded more than enough content from iTunes (movies and tv shows) to keep me going. If there was more HD films to buy I would buy more. If there was more of my fav old tv shows available I would buy them to.

When I looked at Netflix and Lovefilm recently I wasn't that impressed with the content available to stream.

I get the impression that CBS and the other studios want Apple to stump millions of dollars in advance like Netflix did for the rights to stream their shows, whereas Apple wants a more pay-as-you-go type arrangement.

I think the streaming service offers the alive aspect of TV. More of a push model with infinite options

Seriously though, I also looked for GoT through iTunes a few weeks ago and it wasn't there. I thought that was odd as I'd already watched the show last year on HBO Canada. Not sure what the big delay was. Its available now, but an episode is $4.49 for HD.

I can see it in iTunes, but I think Apple makes deals with national TV broadcasters to not put episodes up until they have aired in that country.

The problem with buying season passes is you just don't know if the network is going to cancel the show. 30 Rock in HD on iTunes is $49 for the season. Fine if you are getting 25 or more shows. If you buy a season pass for a show and you get 5 episodes than you just got royally screwed. If your talking about last years season then you are one of those people that P.T. Barnum was talking about.

The problem with buying season passes is you just don't know if the network is going to cancel the show. 30 Rock in HD on iTunes is $49 for the season. Fine if you are getting 25 or more shows. If you buy a season pass for a show and you get 5 episodes than you just got royally screwed.

I guess it's possible but hasn't happened to me yet.

I have 4 active season passes at the moment. It's great. No ads, no scheduling my evening around the TV, just an email when the episodes become available. I think it's the kind of service everyone should get.

Buy the DVD, thief. You guys think everything should be free. That is why Apple has to lock down iOS - to keep people from stealing the hard work of developers.

Oh, it's SO inconvenient to not steal - yeah right.

WHile I do purchase legal copies of material both online versions and DVD/ Blu-Ray copies. A growing number of people are watching TV in a manner that is legal but still bypasses how networks (and thus everyone else down) earn revenue.

And that's by using their DVR to skip commercials.

Its extremely common for households that use DVRs (over 50% of the US) to skip commercials. That is how networks earn the vast majority of their broadcast ad rates.

Network tv hate, hate the fact that people can bypass their largest revenue stream.

BUt they aren't willing to open up the purchase option of content for same time delivery as broadcast.

I hate that I do have to wait, even if its just a day to get my legally purchased content and watch it.

I work in an office and because tv is a widely talked about subject (ie what happened on the shows people watched last night), it does degrade the enjoyment of the shows I like. And while I can shield myself from the majority of news/ radio programs that might spoil shows, I can't make my coworkers shut the hell up.

So for a few certain shows, IE my favorite. I will watch illegal copies of them. Again I also pay for those same copies a day later, and then between 3 to 9 months later again purchase them on Blu-Ray (lately, but a few still on DVD if that is the only available option).

Take Trek, I have bought every form of legal Video release. (multiple releases platforms on Video Tape from Colombia house to official release from Paramount/Viacom?CBS, Multiple Release on DVD, two episode sets, then season sets on DVD, the Laser Disc Release, the original HD release, then to date all Blu-Ray releases). I have also purchased every episode in digital format. But I also downloaded illegal copies of all those episodes before they were ever available for legal purchase. I don't feel bad at all.

Supernatural, I have purchased both DVD and Blu-Ray sets for all seasons, and both standard and HD versions of each episode on itunes. Do I feel bad that I also downloaded illegal copies the night they aired to watch so my coworkers didn't spoil me? Nope not at all.

Those are some of the examples of shows where I have purchased everything that is available, most I just get one or two forms.

Let me tell you want I did was absolutely illegal. But I also contribute far more to a shows revenue stream then a person who simply DVR's and skips commercials. And their actions are 100% legal, but utterly cheat a company of their ability to get ad rates.

It's not just a black and white issue on breaking the law equally cheating a company of revenue, let alone the people who get residuals. You can absolutely not cheat them, and be someone who torrents illegally, and you can legally cheat them by using their DVR.

Out of the masses of the US population, vastly more people DVR and skip commercials then who illegally stream or watch torrents.

Steve Jobs is dead, if you haven't noticed, so you can stop spewing venom at him every opportunity you get. It's rather classless, and makes you look like an asshole.

This exactly. Thank you for basically taking the words out of my mouth. This "Zither Zather whatever the f*ck" guy is extremely irritating. But, from what I can gather from almost every one of his posts, that's exactly what he wants to be. That must be a sad and lonely existence.

This guy is just an anti-Apple, anti-Steve Jobs troll that really has no business even being a member of this forum and should be completely shunned. I have this to say to him: "Go spew your biased, anti-Apple rhetoric somewhere else. You might want to start in a place where someone gives a sh*t."

How diplomatic. Other execs likely just told him to take a hike, given that he wants to take profits from their hard work while giving back almost nothing.

Or give them more money via a new revenue stream.

Fact is the ratings, which are the precious core of the tv revenue system, count only around 25k folks in the whole country. That means there are millions of uncounted folks who might or might not be watching a show at any given time but it doesn't matter since they don't count. Networks are freaking out over the idea of losing even one of those people because it comes out to hundreds of thousands of estimated viewers but they can't prove that any other outlet really changes the ratings. Or that these other outlets won't bring in a ton of money also. If the networks would just count all sources in make good they could be making bank that way and we might have fewer rabid campaigns over cancellations.

I remember reading a couple of months ago that the big wigs at Fox revealed that their critical success Fringe was now costing them money while the often panned Terra Nova (which has a huge budget) actually made enough in ratings to basically pay for itself. If they were counting iTunes buys, both might actually be doing much better money wise and perhaps wouldn't be on the block (well TN is not chopped as far as the net is concerned but apparently the studio is trying to shop the show elsewhere). Jericho which was so beloved by CBS might have found enough cash to survive had they counted all sources and avoided the whole 'nuts' campaign only to get a second chance and fail again. and so on

heck some folks that torrent because who cares, might actually subscribe or even buy off iTunes or Amazon or even endure ads off the network website if they knew it would affect whether their fav show stays on the air.

WHile I do purchase legal copies of material both online versions and DVD/ Blu-Ray copies. A growing number of people are watching TV in a manner that is legal but still bypasses how networks (and thus everyone else down) earn revenue.

Most of those folks aren't counted. DVR counts are from the same group as OTA and it's less than 100k viewers.

Seriously, is your sole purpose for being here just to irritate people, call people names and just be a general nuisance? Almost everything you write attacks either Apple, Steve Jobs or AI forum members. Why?

I'm serious as a heart attack. What, exactly, is your motivation for being like that? I just don't understand people like you at all.

If CBS can see the benefits of doing deals with Netflix and Hulu why can't they see the benefits of doing a deal with Apple? I wonder what Steve proposed and why it was seen as a threat rather than an opportunity? I'm sure they must sell CBS shows on iTunes now, so they can see the potential for such as service.

I can tell you exactly what happened there. Did you happen to read this CBS CEO's quote above? It's all about ego. Even though this guy's ego was wayyy big, he knew Steve's was bigger - and rightfully so. Although he'd probably never admit it, he was intimidated by Steve's presence, charisma and success. He wasn't about to have Steve Jobs come into his industry and show everyone else how he should be doing his job. Even if it was an Earth-shattering idea that Jobs was presenting to him that made perfectly good sense, his ego just wouldn't allow it. I really believe that had a lot to do with it.

Here is where I think Steve and Apple are missing out. They want a success based or pay as you go style model. Quite obviously, that is not going to fly - because networks don't want to take a risk with disrupting revenues.

Apple is willing to use its cash pile to pay in advance for components, etc. Why not pay a big chunk of money for global distribution rights with iTunes subscriptions, and then Apple takes the risk of whether they can make this model work. Say Apple plonks down $2B for content from 4 networks - and it gives them global distribution rights for 5 years. That works out about $400 million per year for Apple. Or about $33 million a month. If Apple uses its usual 70/30 split, They need to get about $50 million per month to be able to pay $33 million a month to the networks. Which effectively means, Apple needs to sign up about 2 million customers at $30 per month.

Can Apple do this? I would guess so. But even if they do not manage to make money doing this, this is the sort of risk that is well worth taking. Remember, $2 Billion is pretty much the amount Apple earns EVERY YEAR as the interest payment on its cash pile! Will networks agree to this sort of deal for $100 million per year? I would guess they would - because this would likely make up for any loss in revenues from other channels.

But I really think Apple is going to do something like this. They are going to crack open this market one way or other.

Secondly, there is something about the new iPad that has me intrigued. 1080P HD Video fills only around 2/3 of the screen. Even if the video is stretched, it will leave space for black bands above and below. Can this space be used by Apple to play ads? What if Apple can actually offer subsidized TV programs by displaying Ads on the black bands? This is not Apple's style, but maybe they can offer 2 options. A $30/month fully paid option with no ads, or a $15/month option with ads. But the problem is, this space exists on the iPad, but does not exist if the screen is sent to an Apple TV via AirPlay.